To those that like them, they see this act as bold - which it is. It's like they call them on some - "tramp stamps"
as far as the tattoo being sexy... I think the only reason tattoos are confused with being sexy, is because often they are on exposed skin. If the same skin was exposed, but blank... That would probably be sexy too.
It's confirmation bias. So-called "tramp stamps" are tattoos on the place that women who want to advertise generally leave bare. So if women leave their midriff bare, and there happens to be a tattoo there, then the tattoo becomes associated with sluttiness. If women who wanted to advertise generally showed off the bottoms of their feet, then bottom-of-the-foot tattoos would be called "tramp stamps."
What this leaves out, of course, is how many women there are with "tramp stamps" who rarely or never show off their midriffs. Does the word "tramp stamp" still apply to their tattoos? If it's really the location which bestows the name, then why aren't tattoos place slightly above the pubic area the "tramp stamps"?
The lower back is one of the few places where it's possible to have a symmetrical tattoo which bisects the body (and yet can be easily hidden).....that would be why I got one there. I never show it in public unless wearing a swimsuit, except for one time shopping when I leaned over to look at something and a woman actually
pulled up the back of my shirt to get a better look. One bitch about having tattoos is that people tend to assume that your body is somehow public access. It's hard to deal with such people politely.